Opinion
Civ. No. 03-2854 (GEB).
November 14, 2005
ORDER
This matter having come before the Court upon the various motions for partial summary judgment filed by both Plaintiff Globespanvirata, Inc. ("Globespan") [Docket Entry # 157] and Defendants Texas Instruments, Inc., The Leland Stanford Junior University and its Board of Trustees, and Stanford University OTL, LLC ("Defendants") [Docket Entry # 156]; and the Court having decided the motions based on the written submissions of the parties and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78; and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order; and for good cause shown;
IT IS THIS 10th day of November, 2005 hereby
ORDERED that the parties' motions for partial summary judgment are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as follows:
The '322 Patent
1. The Court denies Globespan's motion for summary judgment that the accused products do not infringe claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 5,400,322 (the "'322 Patent"), both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.
2. The Court grants Globespan's motion for summary judgment that its ADSL2 Products do not infringe the '322 Patent.
3. The Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the accused products satisfy the following claim limitations in the '322 Patent: 1) "symbol"; 2) "symbol count"; and 3) "identifying symbols transmitted by the system by a symbol count."
4. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment of infringement as to the remaining claim limitations in the '322 Patent.
5. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment of direct and indirect infringement of claims 1-20 of the '322 Patent.
The '447 Patent
6. The Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the accused products satisfy the following claim limitations of U.S. Patent No. 5,479,447 (the "'447 Patent"): 1) "subcarrier-indexed estimates of the transmission quality"; 2) "sorting the subcarrier-indexed estimates of the transmission quality . . . into an invertible ordering"; and 3) "for assessment of the relative data-carrying capabilities of the subcarriers at initialization and/or during data transmission," and denies summary judgment of infringement as to the remaining claim limitations.
7. The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Globespan that the ADSL and ADSL2 Products do not literally meet the "scaled by the desired subcarrier bit-error-rates" limitation. Consequently, Globespan's motion for summary judgment that the ADSL and ADSL2 Products do not literally infringe claims 1 and 2 of the '447 Patent is granted.
8. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the accused products satisfy the "scaled by the desired subcarrier bit-error-rates" limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
9. The Court denies Globespan's motion for summary judgment that the accused products do not satisfy the "communicating" step limitation literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.
10. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment of both direct and indirect infringement of claims 1 and 2 of the '447 Patent.
11. The Court denies Globespan's motion for summary judgment that the accused products do not infringe claims 1 and 2 of the '447 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
The '604 Patent
12. The Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the accused products meet the "apparatus arranged for differently encoding a plurality of data signals" claim limitation in claims 1-14 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 5,596,604 (the "'604 Patent").
13. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the accused products infringe claims 15-21.
14. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the accused product meet the means-plus-function limitations of claims 11 and 12.
15. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the limitations "receiving data signals to be transmitted from a plurality of input data channels" and "modulating different numbers of bits of the encoded data signals onto different carriers based on the susceptibility of the different channels to noise" in claims 19-21 read on the accused products.
16. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment of infringement as to the remaining claim limitations in the '604 Patent.
17. The Court denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment of direct and indirect infringement of claims 1-22 of the '604 Patent.
18. The Court denies Globespan's motion for summary judgment that Globespan's ADSL2 Products do not infringe the '604 Patent.
Invalidity
19. The Court grants summary judgment that the Tu thesis discloses steps (a), (b), and (d) of claim 1 of the '447 Patent, and denies summary judgment that the Tu thesis discloses step (c). Consequently, Globespan's motion for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '447 Patent is anticipated by the Tu thesis is denied.
20. The term "input data channels" in the '604 Patent means the "source of the input data signals."
21. Globespan's motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of written description for claims 19-21 of the '604 Patent is denied.